Who is secretly a little relieved to see the end of DEI policies and trainings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am and I'm not secretive about it.

I think we are in a highly reactive culture right now and it's to everyone's detriment. It's not like these DEI programs were developed intelligently to actually address systemic racism or truly create more equal opportunities. They were a reflexive development to the political culture after George Floyd's murder and organizations were afraid of being viewed as insufficiently supportive of their black employees or having the "wrong" politics. 2020-2023ish were also tough years to hire and orgs were doing everything they could to make themselves seem appealing to new hires, especially younger hires. This resulted in a ton of pandering programming that was designed primarily to signal they had the right politics, but did not actually improve anything.

I am very supportive of REAL initiatives to improve diversity of all kinds within organizations. The best programs, I think, tend to be internships, community outreach, and training programs that target underrepresented groups in your organization. These provide actual opportunities and pathways for people who might otherwise not feel like they are welcome or not know how to get the experience they need to get a job there. These also tend to be good for organizations by providing pipelines of talented people and ensuring they get better training earlier. My DH's state agency has an internship program that works with two public universities to provide interns who are interested in the field (civil engineering). One of the two schools is a commuter college with a very diverse population, not just racially but also socioeconomically (the other school is a state flagship). A very high percent of interns through that program wind up applying for jobs there after they graduate, with a high pick up rate because they know the agency and have some hands on experience there. The result is a very diverse workforce that draws extensively from across the state's population. And these people tend to be good at their jobs too. I know because I'm married to one of them.

But it's not a "DEI" program. It's a 20 year old program that was developed to address two problems -- the agency used to be populated entirely by white men, and they also struggled to recruit because of increasing competition in the field. It was a practical solution and it was tailored to the needs of the agency. It was not a politically-motivated program designed mostly as a marketing ploy.

So no, I'm not sad to see most of these DEI programs go. No organization needs an entire department whose job it is to craft social media messages for Hispanic Heritage Month and MLK Day. It's actually okay if organizations don't even observe that stuff. A good organization will have practical diversity initiatives that actually make the place a welcoming, egalitarian place to work for people of all backgrounds. You can do that without a DEI office.

Well said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll be glad to see an end to these initiatives. They did more to divide people than unite us.

+1.

They definitely divided us. We became us Vs them in the company when previously there was just us.

I very much doubt that everyone in the company felt that it was "just us" before. Ditto to the people who "never saw a problem before" - of course you didn't. That is literally why initiatives like this were created.

The title of this thread could be accurately revised to "Who is secretly a little relieved that they do not have to consider diversity, equity, and inclusion at work anymore?" because that's the issue here. It's not that you didn't like having meetings or that the meetings were poorly planned/led. It's that you don't want to talk about being racist because it's uncomfortable for you to admit how racist you are. Yes, even you "non-white woman" and everyone else claiming your minority cred to make thinly veiled racist comments. Look at you getting protective cover to be bigoted. Guess DEI had you covered real well there!

I agree in general that many of the DEI initiatives were poorly organized, run by people with other axes to grind/personality disorders/etc. but vilifying the whole idea of INCLUSION AND EQUITY because you don't like the execution of it, and being "secretly relieved" that you don't have to think about racism at work anymore is not virtuous.

You’re jumping to extreme conclusions. The original post was not vilifying the idea of inclusion or equity at all.

[Anonymous]

I think the actions firing employees and dismantling office are extreme, but grateful to no longer have mandatory interview questions, performance metrics. Etc. which felt forced and not always applicable to every role

[Anonymous]

I'm relieved it's over. Where I work, there was a lot of pressure to send white male employees to trainings where they would be "made uncomfortable." It's wholly inappropriate to make anyone uncomfortable about their race or gender in a workplace. I refused and it caused me some problems. If people want to sign up for it, okay. But I'm not going to target people to be "made uncomfortable".

[Anonymous]

So now we go into overcorrection mode to put us right back where we started, only to have a reverse overcorrection of this overcorrection in a few years. The next version won't be called DEI; it will have a different name with a twist but still be DEI.

History repeats itself.

[Anonymous]

I jusr deleted the DEU type emails because they have nothing to do with my actual job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll be glad to see an end to these initiatives. They did more to divide people than unite us.

+1.

They definitely divided us. We became us Vs them in the company when previously there was just us.

I very much doubt that everyone in the company felt that it was "just us" before. Ditto to the people who "never saw a problem before" - of course you didn't. That is literally why initiatives like this were created.

The title of this thread could be accurately revised to "Who is secretly a little relieved that they do not have to consider diversity, equity, and inclusion at work anymore?" because that's the issue here. It's not that you didn't like having meetings or that the meetings were poorly planned/led. It's that you don't want to talk about being racist because it's uncomfortable for you to admit how racist you are. Yes, even you "non-white woman" and everyone else claiming your minority cred to make thinly veiled racist comments. Look at you getting protective cover to be bigoted. Guess DEI had you covered real well there!

I agree in general that many of the DEI initiatives were poorly organized, run by people with other axes to grind/personality disorders/etc. but vilifying the whole idea of INCLUSION AND EQUITY because you don't like the execution of it, and being "secretly relieved" that you don't have to think about racism at work anymore is not virtuous.

You’re jumping to extreme conclusions. The original post was not vilifying the idea of inclusion or equity at all.

The poster is reminding things were not all rainbows and sunshine for all of us pre-DEI. Just because someone smiled in your face and didn’t air their grievances didn’t mean they felt united with you. But the way DEI was implemented made everyone uncomfortable. Now we can go back to only a subset of the workforce being uncomfortable again. I guess that’s a win.

[Anonymous]

A lot of them were completely useless to fight against discrimination, so I don't think many people will be sorry to see them go.

However, the vitriol leveled against innocent workers in these offices and the obvious underlying racism and misogyny at the heart of that rejection is actually the bigger problem. I'd rather have a stupid DEI office with stupid meetings and stupid trainings than an executive branch filled with people convicted of sexual assault, whose ex-wives have described terrible abuse, and who routinely verbally attack non-whites, immigrants, LGBTQ+ and women.

The pendulum, in this instance, has swung too far both ways. But one way actually seeks to protect historically vulnerable populations, however awkwardly. And the other way just brazenly doubles down on oppression, Good Ol' Boys and crass vulgarity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of them were completely useless to fight against discrimination, so I don't think many people will be sorry to see them go.

However, the vitriol leveled against innocent workers in these offices and the obvious underlying racism and misogyny at the heart of that rejection is actually the bigger problem. I'd rather have a stupid DEI office with stupid meetings and stupid trainings than an executive branch filled with people convicted of sexual assault, whose ex-wives have described terrible abuse, and who routinely verbally attack non-whites, immigrants, LGBTQ+ and women.

The pendulum, in this instance, has swung too far both ways. But one way actually seeks to protect historically vulnerable populations, however awkwardly. And the other way just brazenly doubles down on oppression, Good Ol' Boys and crass vulgarity.

+100 Chef's kiss!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I a woman did not get a leadership program spot because I got not a lot of points on the Dei question. A white man instead got that spot and I got alternate. I hate DEI ever since then, I’m bitter.

With that said, f Trump and Elon too more white men.

I had at least 25 hours of DEI training a couple of years ago. I got perfect scores on every test, and on every class project.

Signed, old white man

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals went off the deep end with DEI. Now republicans are going to the other extreme. Why is it so hard to do anything in moderation

Moderates are called John McCain and Mitt Romney, who were both excoriated by liberals, and rejected by the voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at a private co and I think some of the HR trainings and programs went too far. Not necessarily that we hired unqualified people- we didn’t- but we spent way too much time and $ jumping through hoops for HR trainings and following their hiring rules and procedures

I’m black FWIW and found the entirely enterprise be essentially worthless. I’m not relieved because the current effort is about more than getting rid of DEI; it’s a wholesale effort to dismantle the civil rights infrastructure — not that it should be unassailable, but it’s a much more ambitious project that is likely to lead to folks being affirmatively and unfairly targeted, including on grounds of race and gender, with no legal recourse. That’s the real goal / the DEI foolishness just gave them any easy hook.

+1 people started getting too comfortable and talking recklessly out loud in the open about not hiring white men and they aren’t the type of people to wait 100 years to push back on stuff like that.

Now if they over correct, and get pushed back from everyone else it’ll go back and forth until we finally get to a place where everyone is hired on merits and that’s where we need to get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s like anything else that became trendy and bloomed quickly (I’m talking about the post 2020 growth in DEI trainings focused more on structural racism and implicit bias)—a lot of providers popped up who weren’t very good. I’ve reviewed a bunch of them and it’s really hard to find well done material that is actually helpful. You have to meet people where they are in a way that’s constructive, not merely critical, and recognize the limitations of what can be done in a short training that is given by someone’s employer. Preachers preaching from a pulpit weekly in a venue people voluntarily choose to attend have trouble changing hears and minds — what can realistically be done in a 2 hour mandatory HR presentation?

I mean, I think the issue is that work is not really the place to try to delve into really personal issues of morality and belief. The massive overstepping was part of the issue. It should have been limited to race/gender neutral trainings on how to communicate, how to mentor, how to give opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals went off the deep end with DEI. Now republicans are going to the other extreme. Why is it so hard to do anything in moderation

Moderates are called John McCain and Mitt Romney, who were both excoriated by liberals, and rejected by the voters.

Exactly. So can people STFU about finding a moderate Dem candidate for next time??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the DEI trainings were more meaningful and sincere than sexual harassment trainings.

All were basically just polite warnings to behave like a decent human being.

The only reason I have any relief is because now some people can't whine that they feel picked on. But those were not the nice people - those were the people most likely to cause issues.

All of our training was very neutral and did not single out any groups as offenders or victims.

I did a good job of creating "DEI Messages" for the beginning of meetings that were thought-provoking without riling up people. I focused a lot on "Diversity of Thought" which simply refers to legitimately different ways of viewing the world and how to problem solve. These were mostly without reference to race, gender, etc. People would request these from me to present at their own meetings. Because they were interesting to think about.

One of the things I learned from making diversity messages is that some people really like the idea of "same" and some really like the idea of "different". These are deeply-held preferences. I think the "samies" got really tired of hearing from the "difference valuing" camp.

I don't miss the performative aspects of talking about DEI a lot. But, every decade has unique cultural phenomena. I understood the zeitgeist for what it was.

That’s an unusually nuanced point of view that I don’t think was widespread. Instead people felt like if they were a “samie” they would be cancelled and accused of being racist.